Emerging Information From Ongoing Moussaoui Sentencing Trial

A little bit of new information is being released or commented on in the ongoing Moussaoui trial, here are a couple.

New government photos (mostly of flight 93 debris) submitted as evidence:


yahoo photos - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Comments on Flight 77 video and pictures:

Moussaoui Jury Is Shown Photos of Dead Bodies at the Pentagon - Bloomberg.com

Another photo displayed to the jury in Alexandria, Virginia, taken by a parking-lot camera showed the explosion of the jetliner striking the Pentagon building. Sixty-four people on the plane and 125 military personnel and civilians in the Pentagon were killed. FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire, who investigated the crash of American Airlines flight 77, described the photos for the jury.

3rd day of graphic evidence in terror trial - azstarnet.com

While the material was supposedly toned down in response to defense lawyers' complaints, it included videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building at 530 miles per hour and photos of charred bodies of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew and 125 Pentagon workers who died that day.

Transcript: Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recorder Tape (PDF)

Also, a few days ago the judge said that all the material presented by the government would be made public absent family objection. Last I heard three families had objected, we will be keeping a close eye on what is (and isn't) made public after the trial.

If you have any comments, or further links on the Moussaoui trial post 'em in the comments.

Michael Wolsey is about to

Michael Wolsey is about to be on...

http://krfcfm.org/ 9PM EST... he's being interviewed.

Does anyone know whether the

Does anyone know whether the Pentagon video shown at the Massoui court is the same old 5 frames or something else?

Robert Bowman is going to be

Robert Bowman is going to be on this show to...

"Does anyone know whether

"Does anyone know whether the Pentagon video shown at the Massoui court is the same old 5 frames or something else?"

"prosecutors played a video presentation that simultaneously showed the flight path, speed and heading in a mockup similar to a flight simulator"

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56881&postcount=45

It's in red because a

It's in red because a "mockup" can be made to show whatever they want.

"While the material was

"While the material was supposedly toned down in response to defense lawyers' complaints, it included videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building at 530 miles per hour and photos of charred bodies of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew and 125 Pentagon workers who died that day."
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/124250

"Sept. 11 victims and family

"Sept. 11 victims and family members. endured a third day of graphic evidence of the horrors and haunting impact of the nation's worst terror attack. It included videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building (Pentagon) at 530 miles per hour and photos of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew and 125 Pentagon workers who died that day..."
http://www.rense.com/general70/vidshown.htm

The Moussaoui trial enabled

The Moussaoui trial enabled The gov’t to withhold, adapt, and invent key 9/11 evidence over 4.5 years so that it could be “presented” against a crazy, tormented Arab (who the gov’t admits had no part in 9/11).

Mousssaui seems cultivated by the NeoCons/CIA as a “Manchurian Candidate” to flaunt the “official story” and quash the truth movement. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media & the sheeple are lapping it all up.

Are these the same flight

Are these the same flight recorders? Pictures and backgrounds look different.

I can't find a second source

I can't find a second source for that.

IM FROM MISSOURI ITS THE

IM FROM MISSOURI

ITS THE "SHOW ME" STATE.

CATCH MY DRIFT?

(im not really from Missouri)

Can't remember where today,

Can't remember where today, but a different news report just said the court was shown the *explosion* at the Pentagon, and I got the firm impression from that, that nothing new was actually on display.

they have a video of people

they have a video of people wired on lattes wiring up wtc7.

doesnt change the fact that

doesnt change the fact that the us govt altered photos of the pentagon crash

911 studies.com

see jack white's photo studies

Scalia Says He's Proud He

Scalia Says He's Proud He Didn't Recuse Himself In Cheney Case

A lot of people believe that the plans for 9/11 took place during these meetings. I added a few extras in the article.

Anonymous gulped, "The

Anonymous gulped,

"The Moussaoui trial enabled The gov’t to withhold, adapt, and invent key 9/11 evidence over 4.5 years so that it could be “presented” against a crazy, tormented Arab (who the gov’t admits had no part in 9/11).

"Mousssaui seems cultivated by the NeoCons/CIA as a “Manchurian Candidate” to flaunt the “official story” and quash the truth movement. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media & the sheeple are lapping it all up."

Crank up that ole conspiracy Model T you got there, Anonymous.

You gotta keep inventing new conspiracy theories to keep up, don't you?

Pathetic.

S. King, so do you believe

S. King, so do you believe that Iraq has WMD's? Do you believe that GWB always tried diplomacy with Iraq before invading? Do you believe that GWB has followed his claim that he would let the Generals dictate how the war would be fought?

If you answered yes to ANY of these, then I see why you are blind to the facts.

You have NEVER answered my question about how a plane can go through a Cavalar covered reinforced concrete wall along with 4 or 5 other concrete reinforced walls, but can't seem to go through a steel frame and glass (mostly air) building.

Can you enlighten us? Do you have an answer to this physics defying action?

http://www.buffalonews.com/ed

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060412/1003031.asp

This article catagorically states that there was no footage of a plane hitting the penatgon shown at the trial. Is what this blog entry referring to something that came up in the trial after this article was printed?

Why didnÂ’t the hijackers

Why didn’t the hijackers try to “cut off the oxygen” to the passenger area as soon as they took control of the plane at about 9:31? The hijackers yelled to cut it off at 10:01, when a revolt was already underway. (In other words, why keep a planeload of passengers alive, who outnumber you 10-1, when it’s a suicide mission anyway? Also, the hijackers didn’t know if serious threats were among those passengers. There could have been air marshals, navy seals, FBI agents, karate masters, etc., on board.)

Where are the videos of

Where are the videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building at 530 miles per hour. I want to see these so-called videos. What bullshit. There are no videos. Who the hell writes this crap. I would be satisfied just seeing pictures. Moussaoui couldnt fly a kite let alone a 757. They had him in court wearing a stun belt so he wouldn't say the wrong thing. This whole thing is embarrising. What a complete sham.

Wow, during those critical

Wow, during those critical first 8 minutes or so after the hijackers took over the plane, all that was said is: shut up, shut up,...down, down,...no, no, no...sit down, sit down....”
Wouldn’t the hijackers be talking to each other about how to fly the plane; which dials, buttons, switches were for what functions; where their current location was; how to find their intended target; how much they were behind schedule; etc.??? Not a word about any of that??? This doesn’t sound “real world” to me!

So OBVIOUS they planted

So OBVIOUS they planted Flight 93 debris it's laughable!

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=294...

"This doesnÂ’t sound

"This doesn’t sound “real world” to me!
Anonymous | 04.12.06 - 11:19 pm | #"

Also notice that they are talking in English all the time. They are not speaking in their native tongue. This seems very odd to me, that a band of Arabs would talk all in English.

I know... I'm just a "conspiracy theorist".

Kelly Arena crying while

Kelly Arena crying while reporting on how they listened to the cock pit recordings was classic.

Batting Averages

Seymour Hersch - 1000
George Bush - 0

Jon Gold. I just listened to

Jon Gold. I just listened to your call into The Ron & Fez show. I wanted to compliment you on your tone and demeanor. Its so important to stay unemotional and not get rattled unlike Korey on that Opie & Whatever show. I would really like to see all matters that are speculation ommitted from the movement especially with precious air time. Talking about shit like Bushs reaction, Bush seeing the 1st plane, Pods, etc is counterproductive. I dont even talk about the pentagon. Nice job.

Hey DHS, weren't the "STOP

Hey DHS, weren't the "STOP the 9-11 COVER-UP" and other national 911 truth movement signs all created in Missouri?

The SHOW ME STATE indeed.

Also notice that they are

Also notice that they are talking in English all the time. They are not speaking in their native tongue. This seems very odd to me, that a band of Arabs would talk all in English.

RemoveBush | 04.12.06 - 11:26 pm

well, those bold texts in the PDF were translated from arabic...

It was only one of many

It was only one of many articles, but one of the peices I read today about the trial involved "videos" of the plane hitting the pentagon. Something we all need to take seriously is the possibility that Flight 77 may have hit the Pentagon. The building is the birthplace of misinformation, I'm sure they were all to eager to throw the wrong parts on rubble piles on 9/14. It's done the incredible job of keeping us talking about that specific enigma rather than the Mineta testmony in regards to the same incident.

And how about Flight '93. The hijackers are considering letting the crew into the cockpit at 9:45? What could've confused them to such an extent? Maybe a scrambled fighter? Who could be looking through the window at 9:53 other than another plane? And the only plausible explanation I can think of for oxygen to become an issue at 10:01, rather than earlier when it could've still deterred the cockpit seige, is a loss of pressure due to a cannon burst from a fighter. Didn't I read somewhere that the last portion of audible tape is gushing wind?

I have the same point here. So what if they shot it down and lied? This administration couldn't be more proud of their manipulation of facts to motivate the people. There's no way we'll ever prove they waited until the plane was under control of the crew before firing, so they can always just fall back on the excuse of protecting the fighter pilot who was just following orders, and then taking advantage of the situation to recognize people they later realized could've been heros. It would be a huge step in the right direction for America to confront them, but I could see this country forgiving these people if they thing our leaders believed they were doing the right thing under extreme circumstances, and we'd be no closer to proving complicity in the entire day's events.

I know it's hard, but this movement requires a constantly open mind if we're actually interested in finding out which individuals were responsible for the attacks and removing them from wherever they're in power, rather than picking a few suspects and a lot of correlating conjecture. Focusing in on specifics is important, we do need to know what happened when. But we can't rely so heavily on incidents (like the Flight 77 anomoly and the probable coverup of Flight 93) that if the official story becomes more credible (77), or if their story changes with an acceptable apology amidst some breaking Iran war story(93), we can't afford to be vulnerable to such events. This movement is much bigger and has a great deal more to investigate still. Foreknowledge is extensive, and from what I can tell, hasn't been explored to its full potential.

And just for kicks, y'all might like to know we held a LC2E screener here in College Station, TX last night. We filled all 120 seats, ppl were standing in the back, and the Q&A lasted about 45 minutes afterwards. If this is approachable in the Student Center of the Bush/CIA University, we're making headway. Keep fighting the good fight.

That Jack White is a silly

That Jack White is a silly man. Not only is his Pentagon photo analysis inaccurate (to say the least), his conclusions are just plain ridiculous and completely illogical. This kind of 'research' makes all of us look like a bunch of drooling tinfoil hatters.

Though it's hard to single

Though it's hard to single out any one lie, Image #4 = a 2nd Hunt The Boeing is yet more evidence of a pathetically weak fraudulent government case.
________________________________________

JAYBIRD wrote: Talking about

JAYBIRD wrote: Talking about shit like Bushs reaction, Bush seeing the 1st plane, Pods, etc is counterproductive. I dont even talk about the pentagon.

That's a terrible approach! What kind of 911 truther is JAYBIRD, anyway?

If We The People don't raise the issue of Bush's incriminating witness statements, there's something wrong with us, even (especially!) if the 'leaders' of the 9/11 truth movement try to influence 911 truthers to not raise the issue.

Bush has twice told us that he was in the loop on the very beginning of the supposedly-secret attack!!! http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml

And the only thing more revealing than the content of Bush's statements is the fact that he's never been questioned about them by Michael Moore, the Democrats (incl Kucinich, McKinney, Kerry...), the 9-11 Commission, the media, Congress, etc.

And to that list of lie-hugging institutions/entities/people you can add the 'leadership' of the 911 truth movement, most of whom ignore the statements, and some of whom tell lies about them, while some just blithely refer to them as "shit".

Why would they do that, I wonder... We should be wary of people who try to get us to disregard lie-busting evidence like that. I sure hope honest 911 truthers stop falling for that crap soon!

TheBigLie_____----Fake911truthers_______________________________________________________--FullDisclosure
______________________________________

Has anybody else noticed

Has anybody else noticed when listening to the previously released segments of Flight93 communications with ATC with the other various flights intermixed communications with the other aircraft in the area.(ie. Executive 956) Does anybody else notice that it is only 93 that has that weird frequency sound during transmission, ALL the aircraft communications with the ATC sounds pretty much the same except 93. Anybody know why?

911blimp Do you not recall

911blimp Do you not recall that we already worked past the Bush saw the 1st plane hit the tower is a grammar issue and not a statement of him actually seeing the plane while it hit the tower. "and I saw an airplane hit the tower –" which is equal to I saw that an airplane had already hit the tower. This is a dead issue Bush did not slip up and admit witnessing the first plane crashing he was using the english language (surprising well)that is why the bush saw first plane arguement is a red-herring used by disinfos in their effort to make us semi-intelligent people look like fools.

As i'm not so familiar with

As i'm not so familiar with the english language (i'm german), is the second statement of Bush on Jan 5 2002 in California also a grammar issue?

"well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on"

Remove Bush wrote, "S. King,

Remove Bush wrote,

"S. King, so do you believe that Iraq has WMD's? Do you believe that GWB always tried diplomacy with Iraq before invading? Do you believe that GWB has followed his claim that he would let the Generals dictate how the war would be fought?"

You're off-topic. We're talking about the physics and science of what happened on 9/11. Continual evasion of that doesn't help you one bit, RB.

maddodg wrote, " I want to

maddodg wrote,

" I want to see these so-called videos. What bullshit. There are no videos."

So we go from years of bitching that the "government" confiscated the videos to that there were never any videos.

Way to go. An answer for every occassion, right?

Anonymous wrote, "Not a word

Anonymous wrote,

"Not a word about any of that??? This doesn’t sound “real world” to me!"

Apparently you are an expert on all that happened. Why didn't you testify at the trial, then?

Aaaron Williams

Aaaron Williams wrote,

"Something we all need to take seriously is the possibility that Flight 77 may have hit the Pentagon."

Now, there's and idea!

Gosh, there may even be evidence. And witnesses, too.

Good job, AW. Better get to work on that right away, wouldn't you agree?

15,000 Affected By 9/11

BASTARDS!

BASTARDS!

"Jon Gold. I just listened

"Jon Gold. I just listened to your call into The Ron & Fez show. I wanted to compliment you on your tone and demeanor. Its so important to stay unemotional and not get rattled unlike Korey on that Opie & Whatever show. I would really like to see all matters that are speculation ommitted from the movement especially with precious air time. Talking about shit like Bushs reaction, Bush seeing the 1st plane, Pods, etc is counterproductive. I dont even talk about the pentagon. Nice job."

Thanks.

Sky King got lonely for all

Sky King got lonely for all of us. Nice to have you back!

Zuco. I don't know much about Jack White or how photoshop works but he does make some interesting points about the pentagon photo. The red thingamajig he shows is pretty compelling and the different SUVs at the scene.

"You're off-topic. We're

"You're off-topic. We're talking about the physics and science of what happened on 9/11. Continual evasion of that doesn't help you one bit, RB.
S. King | 04.13.06 - 7:38 am | # "

Typical! When a person can't answer the question, it's off topic and I am the one evading the issue.

Who rights these things for these people? Oh that's right, it would be Bushes cover up team.

"You're off-topic. We're

"You're off-topic. We're talking about the physics and science of what happened on 9/11. Continual evasion of that doesn't help you one bit, RB.
S. King | 04.13.06 - 7:38 am | # "

Once again King:

You have NEVER answered my question about how a plane can go through a Cavalar covered reinforced concrete wall along with 4 or 5 other concrete reinforced walls, but can't seem to go through a steel frame and glass (mostly air) building.

Can you enlighten us? Do you have an answer to this physics defying action?

Explain how this does not apply to physics????? This is ALL PHYSICS. You telling me that F = MA is not the same for a 90% all air building as it is for a solid wall?

Answer the question!

Hi guys, could you help me

Hi guys,
could you help me out please!
I'm 100% sure that aprox. a year ago I saw a tv footage perhaps cnn not sure from the Shanksville site where the mayor sais there are no apparent signs of airplane crash (fuselage, tailsections to be found etc..)

I've googled it for half an hour and couldn't find it now?? But I just find a strange site which mentioned that the original site was german and the mayor sued them so they had to pull it out..

Thanks for any help to make it clear..

Btw. the evidence that there was some incident in the air is 99%. The Bush-Cheney had given orders to shoot down the 4th plane that's still on the CNN site, plus Mineta testimony and it's beyond doubt. I just don't get it why they couldn't go public with the true story? Was it because the link 4th airplane down by government = what about the rest of the day and government role??

Tono Stano, I am not sure

Tono Stano, I am not sure where to find that info, but I do recall the coronor who was sent there said something like:
"my job was over in 5 minutes. You could not find a wing, engine, or body anywhere"

Maybe this helps? I have more detailed information at home, but I'm not there at the moment.

Tono Stano, u can find quite

Tono Stano, u can find quite much footage about flight 93, included the one u are speaking about, in a german special done by WDR that I downloaded some time ago thru p2p.
U can watch it here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orbgLHrFJUk&search=pentagon%20pla
or search for a better version on emule, bit torrent etc.

Why did the

Why did the “hijackers” kill the pilots immediately??? Why not just hold their boxcutters to their necks, or the stewardess’ neck, & have the pilots fly the plane??? They were over Ohio, hundreds of miles from their intended target, why not let the pilots get them much closer, then kill them??? Again, this doesn’t sound “real world” to me.

Thanks! That's excatly the

Thanks!

That's excatly the footage I was talking about, I saw it as tiny clips, not the entire movie by the german crew from WDR.

The disinfo crooks wrote that the mayor Ernie Stuhl of Shanksville sued them because he was "misquoted" what a lie! Watch the WDR footage he is not asked any interrupting questions, no cuts or any tinkering, he just sais how they got to the site and repeats "there was no airplane, no airplane" as the camera rolls..

Great Thanks!
Send the Bush family to Abu Greib!
Those bastards not only depopopulated the Kennedy family and Latin America democratically elected leaders, they are behind 911 too! And it makes no difference as to whether they were only mechanics for some higher up fat cats or directly giving orders..

SKING, staging an emotional

SKING, staging an emotional trial of a stupefied/schizophrenic Muslim who did not perpetrate 9/11 is MORE proof of a government cover-up, not less.

And you are also foolish if you think the only video of the Pentagon is from a blurry parking-lot camera. (We're all recorded buying Happy Meals at McDonalds better than that.) That most secure building in the world had all types of surveillance trained on it 24/7. No video, radar, satellite, etc. of AA77 striking it??? Seems like fraud to me.

Flight 93 might have been

Flight 93 might have been just the "red herring" of the plot:
They sent some al-CiaDa loonies like Moussaoui to hijack it. Whether or not they would succeed, doesn't matter, it was a perfect diversion:
They had some Arabs on display that hijacked an airliner, on the same day. So nobody questions the other more precision guided "crashes".

Flight 77:
Shall they just "unlock" what they have. Nobody says it's impossible that Flight 77 crashed, only "highly unlikely". So we as taxpayers have a right do demand answers from Rumsfeld why the 757 fitted into such a small hole, why no huge 757 turbofans weren't found, and many more answers.

The presented "videos" makes

The presented "videos" makes the truth movement look like fools:
For years every attempt has been made to get at them, *including* law suits, but now all of a sudden they're "readily available" once a true government supporter, Moussaoui by the name, goes on trial.

People find the Illuminati

People find the Illuminati to be an abstract and
elusive enemy. Look no further than your computer,
your television, your iPod, your radio, movie or
newspaper.

http://nineeleven2001.tripod.com/images/ua175-1-a.swf

In the real world jet planes explode and break apart
upon impact. They do not disappear unscathed into a
mass many times it's own.

AmandaReconwith = Disinfo

AmandaReconwith = Disinfo Artist

I dont feel at all insulted

I dont feel at all insulted about Blimps comment towards me and perhaps I shouldnt have used the word "shit". How about "stuff". I feel an argument when dealing with this subject is only as strong as its weakest link. We have 3 steel frame/steel core hi-rises that cannot be viewed as anything but controlled demolition which all contents (except some steel and aluminum) disintegrated mid-air into a fine powder resulting in a pyroclastic flow thru Manhattan into the Hudson River. I dont think I can show a newcomer anything more conclusive than the destruction of the WTC where the majority of lives were lost as well. Not haveing a video of the Pentagon attack isnt as strong a argueing point for me when I have videos like 911 REVISITED and 911 EYEWITNESS to show them. If you cant get someone on that topic they are in my opinion beyond reason. But if you get them there....BAM! I will not focus on issues I would not be willing to stake the entire case on. I dont know what hit the Pentagon. Maybe the plane slipped thru and was shot by a rocket launcher. I dont know. Im not buying the official account by any means. To me its just a detail of the scam in question like everything else. Im 100% positive of something else tho! I would bet the lives of myself, family, and friends on it. Maybe coming off like a know-it-all on the events of 911 is counterproductive. Controlled demolition= inside job. Im not sure who did it. Its obvious who is covering it up and exploiting it. Thats where we should start if we ever get that far. I would love to forget about 911 like the majority of Americans but knowing what we know I simply cannot live my life with pride turning the other cheek on this one.

JAYBIRD wrote... "We have 3

JAYBIRD wrote...

"We have 3 steel frame/steel core hi-rises that cannot be viewed as anything but controlled demolition which all contents..."

That's because you have declared that facts are irrelevant to your pre-conceived conclusions.

I note in another thread that skyking couldn't get a response from any of you when he presented scientific evidence to you showing the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC are perfectly explainable without having to have explosive demolitions.

See http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf and refute it.

You'll make all kind of excuses not to, I know, since your mystical religion forbids rational analysis.

Absolutely Jaybird. The

Absolutely Jaybird. The “official version” is an intricate smokescreen designed to conceal an inside-job. (The gov’t can stage as many sham trials as they want, but they can’t hide the fact that 3 WTC buildings exploded into fragments & dust.)

Furthermore, we cannot be vigilant in preventing another such atrocity if the govÂ’t & general public wonÂ’t admit to this 9/11 false-flag operation!

Oh, Jansen & King, why don't

Oh, Jansen & King, why don't you just "pull-it" like your uncle Larry did. (Didn't he give you a nice cut of the insurance $$$)

How is dismissing someone as

How is dismissing someone as a "disinfo-artist" different than dismissing someone as a "conspiracy theorist." You are avoiding the substance of his argument by disparaging his motive.

@ Tono Stano you can also

@ Tono Stano

you can also find this documentary in better quality on question911.com

Part 1:
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=File%20911%20Unsolved%20...
Part 2:
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=File%20911%20Unsolved%20...

The series & pattern of

The series & pattern of events that took place around 9/11, as stated in the “official story” is total bullshit!

Im seriously done with

Im seriously done with trolls.

I've lost track of how many

I've lost track of how many time "Amanda" has been disproven.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/WORLD/e...

"I've lost track of how many

"I've lost track of how many time 'Amanda' has been disproven."

Got it. Does Amanda continue to post the same specific points even after you have provided evidence to the contrary?

*sigh*

*sigh*

@ Dough Jansen In a former

@ Dough Jansen
In a former version of this pdf of Greening, he challenged Steven E. Jones to repeat his experiments, but now with crushed gypsum and concrete. Jones did. Same results:
So here is Steven E. Jones refute of Greenings hypothesis: 

"For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact NO "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute (using an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. [Jones, 2006] These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with molten aluminum."

The addendum in Greenings PDF, where he challenged Jones, is now deleted without any comment that Jones did the experiment, Greening asked him for. 

If We Invade/Bomb Iran...

While I may not agree with

While I may not agree with Nico, Amanda Reconwith, or others in the hologram/cartoon camp on many points, I agree that it serves no useful purpose to just call them disinfo agents.

I have a libertarian friend who favors the hologram argument and even runs a website (911foreknowledge.com) that follows that line of thought. He despises Bush, agrees that Iraq is a war crime, and supports impeachment. He's definitely no disinfo agent.

Rather than just demonize people with different theories, we should let the evidence for either side speak for itself.

CRUSH THE DEMONIAC.

CRUSH THE DEMONIAC.

what we should all be doing

what we should all be doing is what the Reverend Carl Rove would do, develop a consistent rational sounding narrative, and keep repeating it.

The problem with the hologram and the pod theories is that on the surface they sound crazy, especially to newbees who should be our first concern.

WTC7 is batman and the pentagon crash is robin. Why go anywhere else when they will achieve our objective which is to have the big trial and send the neocons to planet crematoria.

CRUSH THE SLAPDICKS ALSO

CRUSH THE SLAPDICKS ALSO (please).

"You'll make all kind of

"You'll make all kind of excuses not to, I know, since your mystical religion forbids rational analysis.
Doug Jansen | 04.13.06 - 11:13 am |"

I read your document, and I have some things to point out that are flawed.

1) The document does not mention anything about the explossions that occured at least 20 seconds before the towers collapes. See the link for details.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9%2F11&pl=true

2) It does not mention how hundreds of tons of the top part of the building, which was at about a 30 degree angle, mysteriously straightened its self out and fell straight down. Ignoring Newtons.
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

3) The document does not explain why the siezmic data does not show a constant indication if your claim about the energy needed to collapes the towers was not present? Why only at certain times? If there was that much energy being presented, enough that would destroy the CORE's as well then the data should have shown that too.

4) There is no explaination about the sqibs that are CLEARLY seen.
http://www.physics911.net/9-11%20Picture7%20(squib1).jpg

I'm willing to debate this with you, but you also have to be willing to review and discuss my information as well.

Let me know what you disagree with in the video. There is no better proof than watching and hearing the event for yourself. If you watch the video, you will clearly hear the explossions going off from the GROUND floor 20 seconds before the collaps.

tono, you can also find it

tono,

you can also find it at 911podcasts.com

Doug, since you don't

Doug, since you don't believe that the government was part of 9/11, do you also doubt that the FBI was part of the WTC bombing in 1993?

It is a FACT that they provided the information and material for the bomb to an informant for this attack.

Do you not do any research?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html

Doug, heres more 1993 proof

Doug, heres more 1993 proof for you.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur46.htm

Pentagon Using The

Wait a minute. The plane

Wait a minute. The plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized, all that was left was a landing gear and a wheel hub and a piece of engine, all of it flowed into an 18 foot hole and exploded into a superhot fireball, yet there were charred bodies to show photos of from inside the Pentagon?

Yeah right! How does an aluminum, steel, and titanium aircraft get vaporized yet charred bodies are just layin' around? Witnesses said they didn't see luggage or seats, you can't even see such things in photos, so where did these bodies come from all of a sudden?

Let's get these photos released to the public, and let folks like Jack White check 'em out. Hell, I've found photoshopped Pentagon photos on websites, and I'm just an amateur photographer/videographer!

Axel wrote... "In a former

Axel wrote...

"In a former version of this pdf of Greening, he challenged Steven E. Jones to repeat his experiments."

FALSE. Wrong paper.

Try again:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Axel wrote... "The addendum

Axel wrote...

"The addendum in Greenings PDF, where he challenged Jones, is now deleted without any comment that Jones did the experiment, Greening asked him for."

FALSE. See http://911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf, Addendum #3

S.King: "You're off-topic.

S.King: "You're off-topic. We're talking about the physics and science of what happened on 9/11. Continual evasion of that doesn't help you one bit, RB."

What "physics and science"? I just searched this thread for your name and didn't find you posting any "physics and science."

@ Doug Greening wrote in

@ Doug

Greening wrote in this paper (different paper indeed)

"Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed."

False (see my quote in my comment above)

"I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results"

Done (see my quote in my comment above)

So because of me confusing the two papers i was wrong as i wrote that Greening deleted his calling. But still there is no hint that Jones already did the experiments Greening asked for.
The other paper i do not know, but i will read it.

Meanwhile you yourself, Doug, could read this and especially this paper, if you like and show me papers refuting them?

Also RemoveBush asked you 4 reasonable questions, i think. Would you like to answer them?

RemBush wrote... > I read

RemBush wrote...

> I read your document, and I have some things to point out that are
> flawed.
>

> 1) The document does not mention anything about the explossions that
> occured at least 20 seconds before the towers collapes. See the link
> for details.
>
> http://video.google.com/videopla...=9%2F11&pl=true

That was debunked by someone else long ago. There's no need to since the sounds in that video are not evidence of explosive demolitions in the towers. (It is not even clear that the sounds were not dubbed in after the fact.)

If they are valid sounds, we know that internal collapses were occurring before the final collapse, andf they might be those, but I doubt it.

Given the distance from the recording camera to the towers, the sounds at the source would have been very loud, something that is not heard in any of the other far closer videos or reported by the thousands of eyewitnesses nearby.

>

> 2) It does not mention how hundreds of tons of the top part of the
> building, which was at about a 30 degree angle, mysteriously
> straightened its self out and fell straight down. Ignoring Newtons. I.

It did not straighten out at all as all videos indicate. Simple physics.
I am surprised you would make such a statement.

Once global collapse started, the acceleration of gravity far exceeded the top block of buildings horizontal acceleration immediately.

You'll note that no structural engineer has ever questionned the collapses.

> Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state
> of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

You don't believe gravity counts, eh? You haven't bothered to read Greening's paper, have you?

>
> II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a,
> and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors
> (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in
> this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction
> of the acceleration vector.

You are not refuting Greening.

>
> III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>

You are not refuting Greening. Another indication you haven't bothered to read Greening's paper.

> 3) The document does not explain why the siezmic data does not show a
> constant indication if your claim about the energy needed to collapes
> the towers was not present? Why only at certain times? If there was
> that much energy being presented, enough that would destroy the CORE's
> as well then the data should have shown that too.

The seismic data is quite clear and supports Greening. You need to read the paper.

>

> 4) There is no explaination about the sqibs that are CLEARLY seen.
> http://www.physics911.net/9-11%2...%20(squib1) .jpg

Yes there is. It is now crystal clear that you haven't bothered to actually read the paper.

I quote, "While on the topic of explosions at the WTC on September 11th, 2001, it is worth considering an observation that some researchers consider to be evidence of the use of
explosives in the collapse of the twin towers. For example, E. Hufschmid in his book Painful Questions (See Ref/1/) discusses the fact that the collapsing towers spewed out horizontal jets of dust and asks: “How could (this dust) be ejected with such a high velocity that the clouds reached 200 to 400 feet?” Hufschmid concludes that “packages of explosives installed on nearly every floor” must have been used! However, careful
consideration of the WTC collapse mechanism offers an alternative explanation for the ejected dust that eliminates the need for explosives.

"Thus, based on the dimensions of each WTC tower, there were 10,000 m3 of “open space” per floor. The collapsing floor acted like a giant piston compressing the air occupying the open space between floor and ceiling. The pressure build-up would have shattered the windows almost immediately expelling the enclosed air. However, the process of collapse would have simultaneously crushed the gypsum wallboard and
fiberglass insulation present on every floor and some of this debris would have been expelled also. How fast was this dust cloud expelled? The first collapsing floor fell the
3.7-meter ceiling-to-floor distance in 0.87 seconds and subsequent floors fell much faster.

"It follows that a volume of dusty air near the center of a collapsing floor traversed a horizontal distance of about 16 meters in 0.87 seconds in exiting the building. This
volume therefore had an average expulsion velocity of 66 km or 41 miles per hour. As we have shown, the twin towers ultimately attained a collapse velocity in excess of 50 m/s in which case the lower floors were crushed in 0.074 seconds and dust expulsion velocities approached 778 km or 484 miles per hour!"

>
> I'm willing to debate this with you, but you also have to be willing to
> review and discuss my information as well.

You are pretty clear in not having read Greening's paper so why should take you seriously?

FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO

FBI Claims 84 Videos
Show NO Flight 77 Impact
By Jon Carlson
carlson.jon@att.net
10-8-5

Photos taken after the Pentagon crash do not support the Government conspiracy theory that Flight 77, a Boeing 757 airliner, demolished a major portion of the masonry structure:
http://www.rense.com/general67/fbicl.htm

Doug, how did you know

Doug, how did you know S.King was SkyKing. He never said so....

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.....

You guys really gotta stop showing up in two's and corroborating each other. It's not very convincing.

So let me understand

So let me understand this....S. King, Terrence, Doug and others (they're really shills but just for hypotheticals, let's say their regular folk) want us to believe in the government's magnificently, unbelievably incompetent theory and 19 hijackers is true. So again, they want us to believe that after 50 years of cold war innovation and anti-missile defense budgets that cost billions, that a few rather slow moving (comparably) jets and untrained pilots destroyed 3 building in downtown Manhattan, the pentagon and almost the capitol.

Like WOW. If that's true, what the HELL are you guys doing here? Start building bunkers in your backyards guys, cause your government sucks so badly, they can't protect you at all. Zero. Not even from a hijacked jet with a really bad pilot. Get to it...you're on your own with this lousy government. And your okay with this completely horrific idea....that your government is so seriously messed up that all of that planning and innovation has been completely and utterly useless.

Geez, at least we're not as unAmerican as you are. We at least believe our government is CLEVER even if corrupt.

and by the way: does

and by the way: does Greenings paper mention and explain the collaps of WTC 7?

I asked this earlier. If

I asked this earlier. If there was only 1 black box found, is this showing that there were two? They both look as if they are in different locations.

Doug, your really a hopeless

Doug, your really a hopeless cause.

You fail to provide any rubuttle or proof.

For example:

"That was debunked by someone else long ago. There's no need to since the sounds in that video are not evidence of explosive demolitions in the towers. (It is not even clear that the sounds were not dubbed in after the fact.)

If they are valid sounds, we know that internal collapses were occurring before the final collapse, andf they might be those, but I doubt it.

Given the distance from the recording camera to the towers, the sounds at the source would have been very loud, something that is not heard in any of the other far closer videos or reported by the thousands of eyewitnesses nearby."

First, if you bothered to review the video, which obviously you did not, you would have noticed that there was a dust cloud that was observed from the ground floor.

Second, your absoluetly wrong about your assumption that the explosions were not heard or reported.

"It did not straighten out at all as all videos indicate. Simple physics.
I am surprised you would make such a statement.

Once global collapse started, the acceleration of gravity far exceeded the top block of buildings horizontal acceleration immediately.

You'll note that no structural engineer has ever questionned the collapses."

So now video is not valid to you? Sight, sound, and mathmatics do not mean anything to you. With this angle of fall, the top part would have TOPPLED onto the street and into other buildings. This did not happen as the collapse was redirected to PULL the top part in to land on it's footprint.

"You don't believe gravity counts, eh? You haven't bothered to read Greening's paper, have you?"

Evidently, you believe that gravity is so powerful that it controls everything beyond PHYSICS! If a plane is flying 10,000 ft in the air and looses it's engines it is not going to fall straight down. GEEZE, are you a high school student?

"The seismic data is quite clear and supports Greening. You need to read the paper."

No it does not! There is a required amount of kinetic energy required to destroy a building, and that would be shown in data. However, there are only spots of spikes of data that coinside with explossions heard on the very video I provided.

""Thus, based on the dimensions of each WTC tower, there were 10,000 m3 of “open space” per floor. The collapsing floor acted like a giant piston compressing the air occupying the open space between floor and ceiling. The pressure build-up would have shattered the windows almost immediately expelling the enclosed air. However, the process of collapse would have simultaneously crushed the gypsum wallboard and
fiberglass insulation present on every floor and some of this debris would have been expelled also. How fast was this dust cloud expelled? The first collapsing floor fell the
3.7-meter ceiling-to-floor distance in 0.87 seconds and subsequent floors fell much faster."

It's officially obvious that you have no clue!!!!!!

First of all..... The squibs are shown AT LEAST 10 floors below where the building is collapsing. You, and this lame paper, fails in any way shape or form to explain them. You expect people to believe that 10 or more floors below the collapse are small concentraded points of pressure? Are you really listening to yourself?

"You are pretty clear in not having read Greening's paper so why should take you seriously?"

Really? I obviously pointed out at least 4 areas that this paper does not touch on, but you refuse, or are incapable, of discussing them. Instead you divert the questions to something that is not what was asked or are CLEARLY incorrect.

TRY AGAIN!

>>

>> http://video.google.com/videopla...=9%2F11&pl=true

"That was debunked by someone else long ago. There's no need to since the sounds in that video are not evidence of explosive demolitions in the towers. (It is not even clear that the sounds were not dubbed in after the fact.)"
Oh really? would you mind citing who debunked it?

"If they are valid sounds, we know that internal collapses were occurring before the final collapse, andf they might be those, but I doubt it."

Why would internal collapses be occuring anywhere near the bedrock? You know, the location where they'd have to be in order to hear them from that far away and pick them up on seismographs.

"Given the distance from the recording camera to the towers, the sounds at the source would have been very loud, something that is not heard in any of the other far closer videos or reported by the thousands of eyewitnesses nearby."
Loud? Yes. Unheard by other witnesses? No. It was reported that there were "loud" or "large" explosions by several eyewitnesses, on TV and in tapes recorded by firefighters. The videos don't have live audio from nearby...

"You'll note that no structural engineer has ever questionned the collapses."
Oh really? Do explosives experts with a Ph.D in Physics count?

Look up what this guys said about the collpase:

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

"[bunch of crap about Greening]"

Your quote from Greening about explosives doesn't mention squibs, sorry.

Jansen "Once global collapse

Jansen "Once global collapse started, the acceleration of gravity far exceeded the top block of buildings horizontal acceleration immediately."

Of course, all steel buildings have a built-in "tipping point" that causes them to erupt like volcanoes & disintegrate into rubble once some kerosene-based, office-furniture fire begins to die out. They just come down faster than runaway freight trains.

Either that, or you just "pull-it", "pull-it" real good.

Gerhard Wisnewski says, the

Gerhard Wisnewski says, the cockpit voice recorder transcripts look suspicous. Only in german:

http://www.gerhard-wisnewski.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=210

Hints: No person mentioned, who transcribed it, no state or government sign on it, no plane number, no appendix with the explanation who said what, mostly of the alleged hijacker speech in english (all english?, as Deena Burnett, whose husband "died" on that alleged hijacking, stated back in 2002 after she heard the voice recorder: "It was easy to distuinguish between the arabs and the pilots", what means, she understand what they speak!) , even in stress situation (no Allah akbar, instead Allah is the greatest e.g.)

Oh! and this comment: "the

Oh! and this comment:

"the acceleration of gravity"

Gravity is a constant! Perhaps you did not know that?

RemoveBush - I agree with

RemoveBush -

I agree with you mostly but you are wrong about gravity. Gravity causes acceleration at a constant rate. Please don't hurt the cause by being wrong on the high school physics.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/1DKin/U1L5b.html

darryl, I understand what

darryl, I understand what you are saying but that is not what was stated.

Yes gravity causes acceleration, but gravity does not accelerate.

It may be a typo, but that's for Doug to restate exactly what he meant.

OK, so I forgot that

OK, so I forgot that acceleration of gravity is a term used for any object under the influence of gravity.

I appologize to Doug.

See doug, I can admit when I am wrong.

Some background info on Sky

Some background info on Sky King

I just happened to come across our newfound friend Sky King on another board, while I wasn't even looking for him/her. What a coincidence! He/she is everywhere.

Home page:
http://ifacts.typepad.com/

All of his/her posts at that forum (you may need to register)

http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=118215

Let's see what we can find out about our newfound friend.

"Doug, how did you know

"Doug, how did you know S.King was SkyKing. He never said so...."

Because he gave his e-mail address several weeks ago right here.

neo wrote... "So let me

neo wrote...

"So let me understand this....S. King, Terrence, Doug and others (they're really shills but just for hypotheticals, let's say their regular folk) want us to believe in the government's magnificently, unbelievably incompetent theory and 19 hijackers is true."

I focus on the science and 9/11 conspiracy claims concerning the collapses.

You can evade the issue all you want.

(sarcasm)Face it Doug, we

(sarcasm)Face it Doug, we all know you're a gubmint shill - you probably believe we actually went to the moon and that Jews aren't working to control the world and AIDS, Ebola, and other viruses aren't deliberate laboratory creations.

Why don't you get in your Black Helicopter and go back to area 51....(sarcasm/)

Doug, how about this

Doug, how about this also?

Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. “There was nothing there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. “We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.8

Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”9

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm

The link, should you be willing to even read the information.

Can we please discover if

Can we please discover if Doug, Terrence, and Sky King share the same IP address, and ban them if so?

I hate trolls. Trolls don't

I hate trolls. Trolls don't know how to read, they don't know how to answer questions, they don't know how to converse intelligently. It's boring. You might as well be in the 1st grade.

RemBush.... Read Greening's

RemBush....

Read Greening's paper, and either debunk it or stop your incessant whining,

You have failed to demonstrate that the sounds heard on the video are valid or demonstrate explosive demolitions. Instead, you just whine.

"First of all..... The squibs are shown AT LEAST 10 floors below where the building is collapsing. You, and this lame paper, fails in any way shape or form to explain them. You expect people to believe that 10 or more floors below the collapse are small concentraded points of pressure? Are you really listening to yourself?"

I guess you never realized that the towers, like every skyscaper, had stairwells and elevator shafts through which the air moved donwards.

I wonder how you thought people got above floor one everyday.

RemBush, I think you have adequately demonstrated that you really are not too conversant on the subject.

Doug: "I focus on the

Doug:

"I focus on the science and 9/11 conspiracy claims concerning the collapses."

Speaking of "evading issues", what do you think of Dr. Eagar's science, as a proponent of the officials story?

Last year, I was in a discussion with someone regarding the theory Eagar presented on the PBS Nova program (re: the south tower)...

I emailed this to Dr. Eagar last fall, and never received a response... in any case,

_______________---

Dr, Eagar,

I'm writing you with the hopes of getting some
clarification on a formula you presented on the Nova
website, regarding the amount of fuel consumed in the
fireball at the south tower of the World Trade Center.

In a discussion regarding the collapse, the matter of
the visible fireball came up. A link was posted to
the message board for the Nova program, with a rough
formula of how large a fireball would have been
present.

I'll repost the content here. The following quote is Dr. Eagar's "explanation". See the link below the quote for the context...

Oxygen is required to burn fuel. If a liquid is
vaporized-as it must be in order for the oxygen to mix
with the fuel and for combustion to occur-the vapor
occupies about 500 times the volume of the liquid.
Thus, if the jet fuel was consumed mostly in the first
few moments, three things must be present. First,
there would have been a fireball of fuel 500 times as
large as the liquid fuel multiplied by 5 times as much
air as the oxygen required (because air is only 20
percent oxygen) or a fireball 2,500 times the volume
of the liquid fuel that was consumed.

(From:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/letters.html

Now, if we accept that the widely reported amount of
fuel on Flight 175 as being 10,000 gallons, according
to the above formula, I've estimated that the volume
of a fireball created by said fuel would be
approximately 3,342,500 ft^3.
(10,000 gallons=1336.80555555556 feet^3) x 2500

However, the fireball from the impact of Flight 175
easily dwarfs this. Using both photos and video, the
fireball quickly expands, and achieves it's maximum
size as it rises up the building. My rough estimates
came to be...

400 ft = length (along the impact axis)

300 ft = width

180 ft = height

400 x 180 x 300 = 21,600,000 ft^3

Dividing 21,600,000 by 3,342,500 = 6.46

Since about 1/4 of the fireball's volume is missing,
because the building itself actually cuts into it,
we'll subtract 25% from my estimate.

New estimated volume of the fireball: 16,200,000 ft^3.

Because they are not perfectly squared, I'll shave of
another 25% of that number, to account for
irregularities and the oval shape.

New estimated volume of the fireball: 12,150,000 ft^3

Still too big. Let's say that a very generous 25% of
the volume is actually sooty remnants of other burning
debris, so we can further shrink the fireball by 25%.

Remember, I think most here, regardless of their
position on controlled demolition would say I'm being
fair.

New estimated volume of the fireball: 9,112,500 ft^3

Now, let's subtract another 10% of that figure, from
the bottom, just in case I was being too generous with
the height, and defining the bottom edge is a little
tougher than the top or sides.

New estimated volume of the fireball: 8,201,250 ft^3.

This is still well outside the original calculation
you provided on the Nova website above. Many other
accounts, both from official sources, and not so
official, speculate that in the case of the south
tower, the vast majority of the fuel DID burn up,
which seems much higher than the suggested 10% you
mention in your reply to Mr. Dwight.

I've run through it a couple of times, and have spoken
to colleagues in the practical effects end of film
making, and they all think that ALL the fuel had to
have been used up in the fireball, because of it's
size.

My calculations, combined with your formula,
definitely suggest that.

I'm wondering if there are any mistakes, or
miscalculations in what I've posted above, or if there
is a missing piece of the puzzle that you might be
able to address?

Thanks for your time,
(signed)

_______________--

Suffice to say, any theory that makes any significant use of the jet fuel beyond the initial fireball and a rapid burnoff, is just plain wrong. At least according to the math that supporters of said theory themselves have presented, and have not addressed.

The crux of the matter is that Dr. Eagar states...

...a fireball 2,500 times the volume of the liquid fuel that was consumed. While there was a fireball, it was not anywhere near this large...

The basic problem is that the fireball was, in fact, much larger. Of course, if you see something wrong with my calculations, feel free to debunk it.

Jon, Your multiple postings

Jon,

Your multiple postings and lack of a sense of humor about yourself are boring to me - but up until now - i hadn't mentioned it...

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html

Jon Gold wrote.... "I hate

Jon Gold wrote....

"I hate trolls. Trolls don't know how to read, they don't know how to answer questions, they don't know how to converse intelligently. It's boring. You might as well be in the 1st grade."

I agree. Remove Bush is really something.

So let me get this straight,

So let me get this straight, Moussaoui said for years that he couldn't get a fair trial, and that he wanted the lawyer Charles Freeman. And now, years later, CNN just happens to mention that Freeman died? Can you find out why? I cannot find any reports on the Internet that state what happened to Freeman, an obviously high profile figure given his relationship to Moussaoui...

"U.S. Judge Leonie Brinkema eventually rejected the change of venue motion Moussaoui filed while acting as his own attorney. The judge also rejected the application of a Muslim attorney from Houston, Charles Freeman, to represent him. Freeman has since died."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/13/moussaoui.trial/index.html?section=cnn...

Here's the last time CNN mentioned this lawyer, 3.5 years ago:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/03/attacks.moussaoui/index.html

Wow, that's was convenient.

I'm sure at one time or

I'm sure at one time or another we've all felt like getting into a debate with the "brit" at 911myths.com only to realize what an incredible waste of time it would be. You'd think that Doug Jansen would feel the same way about posting links to that site here yet still he persists. He cannot stop himself from completely wasting his time. This is an obvious sign of a personality in crisis, a deep struggle with ones state of denial and the need to NOT feel "uninformed". In the end, Doug Jansen's state of mind only proves further how being "informed" and believing the official story are completely incompatible if not impossible things.

"Read Greening's paper, and

"Read Greening's paper, and either debunk it or stop your incessant whining,"

I have provided 4 areas that are not answered, but you refuse to answer my questions. Answer my questions and stop whining about me debunking your stuff.

"You have failed to demonstrate that the sounds heard on the video are valid or demonstrate explosive demolitions. Instead, you just whine."

WHAT! Get a life! There are many videos with different views that have the same sound. So each of these, independant, videos are faked? But the governments explaination, no matter how rediculous is true?

"I guess you never realized that the towers, like every skyscaper, had stairwells and elevator shafts through which the air moved donwards."

I guess you don't know that the building was HERMETICALLY SEALED, and it was designed that way, which it has to be to do the very thing you are pointing out. If it was not then what good do these stairwells do for people?

"RemBush, I think you have adequately demonstrated that you really are not too conversant on the subject.
Doug Jansen | 04.13.06 - 3:33 pm |"

Really? You still have failed to answered any of my previous questions with any evidence other than to say blah blah blah. I have tried, if not completely, answered ALL of your questions or read and responded to your information. So now who is the one who is " not too conversant on the subject."?

Either putup or shutup! Answer the questions

More on Sky King Sky King's

More on Sky King

Sky King's email address is skyking@scientist.com

Sky King's email address returns 915 hits on google, most appearing to be related to trying to debunk CT's as he calls them:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22skyking%40scientist.com%22

Sky King appears to frequent forums, USENET, most 9/11 related sites, and oddly enough, militaryforums.com.

There is enough data there that I'm sure within the next day or two we can find out who Sky King works for.

Seriously... I don't think

Seriously... I don't think I'm going to continue posting here unless the trolls are banned. They take up everyone's time, are a drain to our intellect, and are cowards. Terrence... still waiting for you over on my board to show me what you've got.

EH wrote.... "I'm sure at

EH wrote....

"I'm sure at one time or another we've all felt like getting into a debate with the "brit" at 911myths.com only to realize what an incredible waste of time it would be. You'd think that Doug Jansen would feel the same way about posting links to that site here yet still he persists."

I guess you didn't notice that 9/11 Myths.com is hosting the papers of a well-known Canadian scientist, Dr. Frank Greening, and are not written by the owner of the website.

But the fact that you don't tolerate 911myths.com asking questions about the "Offical 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" you promote is all we need to know.

There is virtually no tolerance of anyone asking questions of the conspiracy theories promoted here.

Just so everyone knows, you

Just so everyone knows, you can take refuge over on my board if you want. Trolls aren't allowed.

Some quotes from the

Some quotes from the Moussaoui stage about Flight 93:

"The Flight 93 cockpit voice recording is the only such tape that investigators were able to hear from any of the four airplanes hijacked on Sept. 11."

- new instruction for 'good' journalists: report it, but dont question it, especially dedicated to Mr Rush 'hipocisy' Limbaugh

"The plane had been headed for the U.S. Capitol, according to Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed."

- talk about Politics of Fear: these congressmen will now sign the Patriot Act, will they!?

"Even though he was in jail in Minnesota at the time of the attacks, the jury ruled that lies told by Moussaoui to federal agents a month before the attacks kept them from identifying and stopping some of the hijackers."

- how conveniently and unnoticed they always let this premise unchallenged: hi-ja-ck-er-s

there is a big difference

there is a big difference between having a reasonable discussion and having people like you Doug come here and act like complete assholes using every opportunity possible to make snide comments while at the same time pretending as though anyone who doesn't agree with you is a subhuman of some sort.

if you wanted a real discussion you wouldnt do it on a friggin blog, and you would be more honest in expressing your personal opinions rather than just mocking everyone else without providing any real substance in your counter-arguements.

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.b

Healthy debate on both sides

Healthy debate on both sides is good for everyone, is it not? To ban believers of the offical story would be the same type of censorship that is happening to the truth movement. You can't have it both ways. You can only be professional and corgial and show that you are above the stick and stone throwing.

Besides, haven't we learned from the Bush adminstration that the best way to deal with conflicting points of view or allegations is simply to ignore them? :-) Just ignore them, and make posts that continue to support the thread.

The more you debate them the more offical story bs postings there are for truthers-to-be to read on these threads.

I have no problem with

I have no problem with differing opinions, but according to my research on Sky King, they are an obvious troll with an agenda who has problems at every board they visit.

The fact that other boards have someone named Doug posting in the same threads as Sky King, just randomly found boards on the web, makes me think someone is pretending to be several different people, which is irresponsible and deceitful.

I have no problem with banning trolls, especially when they have a 915 page record of it and pretend to be several different people.

http://biggeek.knitblog.com/b

Holy shit, Batman! Check out

Holy shit, Batman!

Check out Sky King's Google Groups posts:

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=aXpgZhUAAACAgk_g3wn88ub...

All 3,886 of them (1,862 in alt.conspiracy)

Also, even Nico Haupt called Sky King out as a government shill on indymedia.org:

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/SKYKING_sf_TVdebate.txt

Haha, this is fun. I'm gonna find out who you are, na nah na nah nah

Moussaoui will walk at some

Moussaoui will walk at some point, he will not be executed. I'm not sure how they'll do it, but this public-enraging performance will not be wasted on a lethal injection gurney.

The specter of yet another crazed, American-hating, blood-thirsty boogieman is invaluable to this War on Terror scam they plan to keep milking for decades.

And by that I mean both GOP and Dem administrations. President Hillary will play right along.

SKY King? Hmmm. And this

SKY King? Hmmm. And this time I've been calling him 'Shit King'.

There was a recent article

There was a recent article from a military woman who was describing a conversation with another military person, in which she fessed up that she didn't believe the official story, and he said something like "of course, it was an inside job." Does anybody have that link?

omg, Sky King, you are the

omg, Sky King, you are the biggest troll I have ever seen in my life. EVER.

you sick, sick man.

Tell me trolls... what does

Tell me trolls... what does the 9/11 report say about the following:

The 5 Wargames Taking Place On 9/11
Sibel Edmonds
Mary Schneider
WTC7
David Schippers

Please, enlighten us.

"There is virtually no

"There is virtually no tolerance of anyone asking questions of the conspiracy theories promoted here.
Doug Jansen | 04.13.06 - 3:49 pm"

I guess when people won't bow down to what you think, they are not tolerant to other theories.

I welcome debate. I don't welcome the following:

"You have failed to demonstrate that the sounds heard on the video are valid or demonstrate explosive demolitions. Instead, you just whine."

"> I'm willing to debate this with you, but you also have to be willing to
> review and discuss my information as well.

You are pretty clear in not having read Greening's paper so why should take you seriously?
Doug Jansen | 04.13.06 - 1:21 pm |"

"> 3) The document does not explain why the siezmic data does not show a
> constant indication if your claim about the energy needed to collapes
> the towers was not present? Why only at certain times? If there was
> that much energy being presented, enough that would destroy the CORE's
> as well then the data should have shown that too.

The seismic data is quite clear and supports Greening. You need to read the paper."

/bI already stated that I read the paper, yet you indicate I should read the paper!/b

When you want to exchange debate, rather than telling me what you think I may or maynot have done, then we can continue.

Well, we should have expect

Well, we should have expect it. Just look around the disinfo industry around JFK still feeding the mainstream media industry with the lone assassin crap while at least since 1978 we know dead sure it was
a government murderous conspiracy and coverup.

It reminds me about Oliver Stone's speach at the National Press Club in the first day of his film screening. The media went ballistic and viscious, how who could he dared to question the "offical" line and point out to our own failure..

Now, we have the same industry hiring usefull idiots and professionals to do the same dirty job with regard to 9/11 to obfuscate the movement, discredit, marginalize..

But we will prevail, it might be the course of history that it will take 100 years before we place the info table in the front of the Bush family grave with the historical truth, "The american Caligula and his family, the traitors of the citizens of the US, world, and humanity - we never forget"

You can't silence the truth, you stupid trolls..

OOOHH OHHH JON PICK ME PICK

OOOHH OHHH JON PICK ME PICK ME I KNOW THE ANSWER OOHHH OHHH PICK ME!!!

Oh sorry, that question was only for trolls. I apologize.

To Doug, You also gotta

To Doug,

You also gotta stop cherry picking comments. Neo said:

So let me understand this....S. King, Terrence, Doug and others (they're really shills but just for hypotheticals, let's say their regular folk) want us to believe in the government's magnificently, unbelievably incompetent theory and 19 hijackers is true. So again, they want us to believe that after 50 years of cold war innovation and anti-missile defense budgets that cost billions, that a few rather slow moving (comparably) jets and untrained pilots destroyed 3 building in downtown Manhattan, the pentagon and almost the capitol.

Like WOW. If that's true, what the HELL are you guys doing here? Start building bunkers in your backyards guys, cause your government sucks so badly, they can't protect you at all. Zero.

That was his complete comment. So do you believe the government is completely incompetent?

Anyway, we are toast folks

Anyway, we are toast folks in any case, the US army just acknowledged peak oil for conventional liquids between 2005-2020, the geologists say 2010 at the maximum.

The Hirsch (DOE) report sais you have to prepare 10-20 years in adavance and by inmplementing crash programm economy in order to mitigate the consequences..

That linked Nico Haupt .txt

That linked Nico Haupt .txt mentioned A.N.S.W.E.R. to be a leftwing gate keeper..

There migh be a valid point. Usually all these radical antiwar or unions movement have some trolls inside working for the gov..

For instance, I was always puzzled by the figure of Ramsey Clark. This guy worked for the Warren Commission, LBJ, now was a lawyer for Saddam..

He could be just an excentric figure but he's got the properties of planted troll..

Anyway, I think the best approach is to continue bombard Amy and Juan from DemocracyNow, few days back she went furios when Robert Fisk (top UK journalist for MiddleEast) told her that Zarkavi might be a hoax, since his spouse must work to support her poor livelihood, they had some deaths in the family, I think his mother, he didn't send money or memmo or anything.. He is probably already dead..

No trolls took a shot at

No trolls took a shot at answering that question? I would have thought they were the foremost experts on 9/11. Oh well. Apparently I was wrong.

Jon, that has nothing to do

Jon, that has nothing to do with WTC1 or 2 you won't get an answer from them.

If the gov't soon releases

If the gov't soon releases video of flight77 hitting the Pentagon, the damage to the truth movement will be immense. Thanks a lot, no-planers. We must prepare and start distancing ourselves from no-757-strike.

Corrections to disinfo in this thread:
* The entry hole was MUCH wider than 18 feet.
* The 757 had to penetrate ONLY ONE reinforced masonry wall. THE LIGHT WELLS WERE ONLY THREE STORIES DEEP.

Jack White is an imbecile, anyone who links to him favorably has no credibility. Jon Carlson is a moron, as well -- he reliably focuses on the most dubious aspects of every theory.

RemoveBush, learn to spell: 'siezmic' 'rubuttle' 'cavalar'

"No video, radar, satellite, etc. of AA77 striking it??? Seems like fraud to me."

Or they wanted to fuel ill-founded speculation in order to later discredit it, along with the rest of the truth movement.

*****

"That's because you have declared that facts are irrelevant to your pre-conceived conclusions."

Go tell that to NIST!!

"Once global collapse started"

A fan of NIST I see.

"You'll note that no structural engineer has ever questionned the collapses."

They'd be called anti-Semitic Bush-hating tinfoil kooks, and have their Federal funding pulled.

I don't think all trolls should be aggressively banned, but AmandaReconwith needs to go.

"even Nico Haupt called Sky

"even Nico Haupt called Sky King out as a government shill"

err Haupt calls everyone government shills?

"RemoveBush, learn to spell:

"RemoveBush, learn to spell: 'siezmic' 'rubuttle' 'cavalar'"

Sorry Able, I didn't realize this was a spelling bee.

So should we now be focusing on spelling rather than discussion of the truth?

I've discovered that Sky

I've discovered that Sky King also goes by Agent86, Frank Dwyer, Vandar, and many other aliases. They're accused of being a shill at nearly every board they've every been to.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22skyking%40scientist.com%22+s...
http://www.militaryforums.com/General_Military_C2/Military_Retired_F6/Re...

I'm still working on tracing back to all their different names, and I WILL FIND OUT who they are, who they work for, where they live, every single piece of information about their life and their associations with any organizations.

I didn't believe there really were disinfo agents, but we found one, and he appears to be one of the biggest ones there are. Buddy, our shill friend, you've messed with the wrong guy.

We should now be focusing on

We should now be focusing on getting out, and being heard. My two cents.

"err Haupt calls everyone

"err Haupt calls everyone government shills?"

See my post above, or search google or google groups for "skyking@scientist.com shill".

God, I can't believe anyone is arguing with me about whether this guy is a shill. Click the links I gave above. He's all over the web.

Publicizing the truth is

Publicizing the truth is indeed the main priority now. However good spelling is essential :)

I don't usually find hunting of disinfo agents to be interesting, but Anonymous, you may be onto something.

(I wasn't arguing with you,

(I wasn't arguing with you, just pointed out that if Haupt calls someone a shill it doesn't mean a lot)

http://groups.google.com/grou

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/2d5f344faa439cff?hl=en&

Vandar (Sky King) said:
> You omitted another possibility - that these are neo-Con SHILLS, being PAID
> to discredit those that have the intelligence and courage to question and
> expose the official coverup of 9/11. As the shills haven't a leg to stand on
> factually, all they do is sling mud in a feeble attempt to discredit the
> claims of dissenters.

I told you before, we aren't paid to discredit anything, we're paid to
keep you occupied.

http://groups.google.com/grou

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism/msg/62a49e0612695a47?hl=en&

From: Vandar
Date: Thurs, Mar 30 2006 11:03 am
Email: Vandar

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Vandar" wrote in message...

>>Speak for yourself. Conduct your investigation if you want one. No one
>>is stopping you. Go scream on the steps of Congress. You aren't
>>accomplishing anything here.

> I am making at least as much progress as you, thanks. ;-)

Part of my duties for CSS is to keep you here and distract you from
conducting any real investigation.
I'd say I'm doing my job quite well, wouldn't you?

CSS in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Security_Service

The Central Security Service (CSS) is an agency of the United States government. It was established by Presidential Directive in 1972 to promote full partnership between the National Security Agency (NSA) and the cryptologic elements of the United States Armed Forces.

Professional, thanks for the

Professional, thanks for the link to Laura Knight Jadczyk. Great stuff!

Instead of discussing the

Instead of discussing the flight93 photos we have argued with... wow I guess there really are dedicated distractors out there! :o

www.spellcheck.net :) sometim

www.spellcheck.net

:)

sometimes I spell "spellcheck" wrong
in the navigation bar...which is embawising :D

as soon as I see spelling

as soon as I see spelling errors in articles, whether 911 related or not, I totally discount the entire thing.

If YOU did not take the time to proofread your own work, that is a shame.

OK, here is the information

OK, here is the information that I know or believe. Can those who have been chasing this issue longer than I have, which has been 1 1/2 years, where I may be wrong or incorrect?

Know:

1) The military was made to standdown. This is making some leap of faith, but having served in the military and knowing how it can react I am confident in this. Maybe this should be in the believe section?
2) No Arabs on the Offical manifests or Autopsy.
3) Arabs who are suppose to be strict followers are drinking and with girls in a topless bar.
4) People who could barely fly a cesna yet make military style moves with a 757.
5) Secret Service did nothing to protect the president after it was well known that we were "under attack".
6) All Pentagon officials scheduled to fly on 9/11 cancelled on 9/10 due to a possible threat.
7) Mayor of San Fran. warned not to fly on 9/11.
8) At least 3 videos confiscated around the Pentagon.
9) 3 steel framed buildings collaps, first in the history of the world.

Believe:
1) The planes were switched with the original planes.
2) Flight 93 was shot down. The hole is not similar to previous accidents in aviation history and makes me believe it to be a staged crash.
3) Explosives were in WTC1, 2, 6, and 7. There was an explosion shortly after the people were evacuated from WTC6, which left the large crater.
4) The cell phone calls were all faked. There is no way a cell phone will work above 4,000 ft and going 400MPH.
5) I do believe that all the passengers were on flight 93 so that the evidence could be destroyed. Especially since 4 planes were 1/4 full, which is very odd having all these particular planes 1/4 full this day.

This is the bulk of it for now.

I have plenty of links of information, but with so much disinformation out there it is hard to determine factual stuff from in-accruate to pure false.

Thanks

hey guys the euro edition of

hey guys the euro edition of Time mag runs this week huge promo on the UAF93 holly/bollywood disinfo forthcomming movie.. The article is complete whitewash..

I presume the US version has it to. The Time editor guys should have to be informed that we didn't forget the Time-Life (Time-Warner nowadays same company) trick of putting the Zapruder film for 13years into vault.. Write them a letter/email/fax!

The best part is a picture of Richard Clark, probably the highest mole in the government, that's the guy who was running through the whitehouse minutes after attacks screaming that's al-Qajda, Bin Ladin etc..

But as said Rick Siegel recently, the media are the complicit criminals and won't report on themselvs, but at least we might try..

S. King/Darth

S. King/Darth Vandar:

Seriously, what is your great purpose/motivation in spending hours & hours jousting with 9/11 truthers?

"No Arabs on the Offical

"No Arabs on the Offical manifests"

Manifests have not been released. The lists we have may be inaccurate, and may intentionally omit the hijackers out of not wanting to list them along with the victims.

See here, however:
http://911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html

I submitted that as news for 911blogger.

"Mayor of San Fran. warned not to fly on 9/11"

His 'security people' may have seen just a general warning.

"3 steel framed buildings collaps, first"

...due to dire. An earthquake destroyed one. (minor point, actually in favor of the demolition theory)

"The planes were switched with the original planes."

Highly doubtful. Too complicated and pointless.

"There was an explosion shortly after the people were evacuated from WTC6, which left the large crater"

Incorrect. The dust cloud + crater was from one of the towers 'collapsing'.

"There is no way a cell phone will work above 4,000 ft and going 400MPH."

This is contested, but it is unlikely.

"I do believe that all the passengers were on flight 93 so that the evidence could be destroyed."

Bumble planes? sheesh...

The other facts were more or less OK :)

You can use this site for basic shitchecking:

http://911research.wtc7.net/

"If the gov't soon releases

"If the gov't soon releases video of flight77 hitting the Pentagon, the damage to the truth movement will be immense. Thanks a lot, no-planers. We must prepare and start distancing ourselves from no-757-strike."

Dont worry, as far as I have seen, this hasnt happened, as the link I posted above states.

As for this Doug guy, I think his arguments are based on:

- A particular report, the credit of which has been disputed and no rebuttles have come.

- A faith that a single report that opposes one element of the 911 truth case will disporve the entire movement, which is based on an extremely large cumulative case with reams and reams of evidence of different sorts.

Dont worry about doug, or flight 77 tapes.

5) I do believe that all the

5) I do believe that all the passengers were on flight 93 so that the evidence could be destroyed. Especially since 4 planes were 1/4 full, which is very odd having all these particular planes 1/4 full this day.

Let's take this 1/4 occupancy fact into account this has the following implications (options):

1/ they wanted minimize the deathtoll (not very probable giving fireman slaughter in WTC)

2/ they selected preassigned team of passangers on "suicide" mission. People with terminal cancer and huge payoffs for surviving family etc..

3/they just switched planes like in Operation Northwoods = these people are still alive! Living somewhere, sipping drink on the beach

=> so what about creating passenger fotoalbum project? The world is small now if we get photo gallery of most of these people, one day some of them will make a mistake and will be recognized (under this scenario)..

Able, I have to ask why you

Able,

I have to ask why you believe this:

"Highly doubtful. Too complicated and pointless."

Not complicated at all. Very easy given the flights were not truely known for sometime due to the transponders being turned off and false planes being injected into the radar. Why do you say pointless? If they want to ensure that everyone is taken care of, placing everyone onto one plane would be better.

"Incorrect. The dust cloud + crater was from one of the towers 'collapsing'."

Where did you get this from because where I got the info from states otherwise. (tried to do a quick search through my files, but did not find the link. Can get it if it is absolutely necessary.)

Tono - "3/they just switched

Tono -
"3/they just switched planes like in Operation Northwoods = these people are still alive! Living somewhere, sipping drink on the beach"

I beleive more in the following option:

They were all put on Flight 93 to ensure that the bodies were disposed of.

This is the easiest way to keep people from talking. Having people still alive living somewhere else leaves too many possible issues.

Remove: You sound like a

Remove:

You sound like a walking talking Loose Change video...

Let's stray from speculation and deal with the hard truths...

stand down, bunker, cheney, mineta, omissions, bribes, etc...

DHS, Is not a Theory a

DHS,

Is not a Theory a speculation to some degree?

So then I guess I'll give up because there is no real hard truths. If there were hard truths and evidence to the issue this would not be in such opposition.

As far as Loose Change, they do a good job with most all of the information for the average person. I guess you don't want to get information out to the less technical individuals?

Can you tell me what about the following do you consider being "hard truths"?

Stand Down:

It is not a hard truth. This gang has already attempted to show that it was a fault of the system. By the average persons thought, it was a problem with the system. Only those who are more able to think outside the box can see this for what it is.

Bunker:

What about the bunker? There is very little if any information about it. Many people don't know about the Secret Service rushing Cheney into a bunker.

Cheney:

What is so special about him in the eyes of the day? Other than the fact that he was in charge of the military that day and did nothting?

Omissions:

A little hard to prove when much of the documents are in the hands of the government. Even when things are obvious like Katrina, people just don't listen or care.

Bribes:

This is the easiest, but what has come of it so far?

I thought that the idea was to get people talking about it and to get them interrested in looking at the issue. Every little bit helps, and better to have them looking for information to discredit the information and find the truth then not look at all.

What's your thoughts?

Stano, suspecting the

Stano, suspecting the victims is not productive, even if some of them were not victims at all.

R B:
The plane switch would have upped the conspirator count quite a bit: possibly aircraft manufacturer, ground crew, primary radar operators... It would have been pointless since it's much easier and less risky to either let arab stooges hijack the planes and use them as missiles, or hijack the planes using remote control, or a combination of these.

I quickly found this for WTC6, I've seen other rebuttals:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html

Remove: I agree that

Remove:

I agree that anything to get the public interested and asking questions is a good thing, however a few of Loose Change's points (no planes, fake calls, switched planes, etc) I don't bother with because there are other issues that are easier to press, even to a less "technical" audience.

Please don't take my comments as an insult though. I'm on your side, friend.

"R B: The plane switch would

"R B:
The plane switch would have upped the conspirator count quite a bit: possibly aircraft manufacturer, ground crew, primary radar operators... It would have been pointless since it's much easier and less risky to either let arab stooges hijack the planes and use them as missiles, or hijack the planes using remote control, or a combination of these."

Able, I do disagree with some of your assertions.

First of all... We don't know for a fact that the planes were 757's or even the planes in question. There was no identification of the parts that were found, and several of them were traceable parts. Like parts of the engines and landing gear.

So the aircraft manufacturer would not necessarily need to have been involved, but someone obviously knew about it with the "put options".

Ground crew, this may not be an issue either. The aircraft ground crew would be doing their jobs. If there was military involved it would have been very few people and probably only those that have high clearance. You don't think that people can keep secrets? How about all those black ops that take place every day, yet we don't know about them.

The problem is that on this day there were many false blips so who is to tell what was real and not? This was the reason for the false blips so this would add to the confussion and slow the process.

The problem is that I don't believe that people would have let the planes go that long if the pilots have been killed already. I know that if I'm on a plane that the pilot has been killed I am going to raise support to take it over immediately. It's not like having the pilot alive and having them take them where they want.

"I quickly found this for WTC6, I've seen other rebuttals:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...sis/ wtc6_5.html"

Thanks, but I have seen this one.

I will look for it, but I have a link that talked with CNN and confirmed the time of the explosion with them and it was well before the collapse. I will see if I can find it and provide it.

"Remove: I agree that

"Remove:

I agree that anything to get the public interested and asking questions is a good thing, however a few of Loose Change's points (no planes, fake calls, switched planes, etc) I don't bother with because there are other issues that are easier to press, even to a less "technical" audience."

OK, there is one thing that I really do have a disagreement with you on.

The fake calls. I do have to say that the calls that are from cell phones are fake. I can't say for sure about the others, but here is why I say this.

First of all, when someone calls their mom they are not going to say "Hi mom, this is FULL NAME". Not going to happen. Also, the conversations are way to questionable and there is known software out there that can mimic any voice in real time once it is sampled.

"Please don't take my comments as an insult though. I'm on your side, friend.
DHS | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 9:31 pm |"

I don't, I want debate. I don't know everything and I want to hear a different point of view. My view is not the only one and can/does lead to errors.

Thanks for the communication.

OK, I found the WTC6

RB: to play Devil's

RB:

to play Devil's Advocate:

IF Mark Bingham frantically called his mom, there is a slight chance he might have said his last name in a panic-type state. Who knows what I would be thinking about IF a situation like that was presented.

What is so strange is that there are so many anomalies. Some people even claim the lack of registration in certain databases is evidence. I find it all very interesting.

What I find most interesting is the lack of any substantial opposition other than mass ignorance, ridicule, or lies.

I don't have answers; I have many questions. What I'm looking for is authorities to address these questions and compare answers with sources who have been waiting nearly five years for more information.

I think UNITED 93 and WORLD TRADE CENTER will be great opportunities to present the movement in 2006. I also think THE GOOD SHEPHERD will be worth checking out. Momentum needs to keep up for a main stream media response and possible progression into real resolution.

Airphone calls are feasible, cell phone calls seem less likely, though I'm not sure of the exact details of either the calls or the experiments to refute them, but from what I understand major variables are not the same, like location and type.

The Pentagon is suspicious, but it's the Pentagon. Isn't it supposed to be suspicious? Show the crash and end the no plane theories or show it and confirm them. Simple? You'd think so in normal world. Not so in the super secret terror terra.

The WTC COMPLEX (which I suffer from) is very peculiar in so many ways that I would lean very strongly toward controlled demolition of some sort for many reasons but I cannot claim what is the truth. I would say there are many unanswered questions about the entire situation and what I think is the most shame is the fact that so many people breathed in cancer air for weeks during cleanup. This, and the coverup of the effects of the air seem criminal not due to incompetence or mere negligence, but purposeful, deceitful misconduct.

Shanksville. The name says it all.

Shank: A severe mishit in which the golf ball is struck by the hosel of the club. On a shank, a player has managed to strike the ball with a part of the club other than the clubface. A shanked shot will scoot a short distance, often out to the right, or might be severely sliced or hook.

There are witnesses of white planes and debris for miles, with a lot of talk on shoot downs. Again, why so much debate still and unanswered questions? Why hasn't a real, complete investigation been done and not just the 9/11 Commission Report's story (which is not an investigation as much as it is the documented story of 9/11, with little debate) ?

A civil rights movement is how I try to think of it. By allowing indifference and deference to the issues of people who happen to pay enough attention and do enough research to come up with valid, unanswered or debatable questions, we are losing control. Why is there no opposition willing to support a rebuttal that attempts to be assertively influential without resorting to insults, cliches, or evasion?

DHS, thanks for the very

DHS, thanks for the very well written reply.

We obviously have the same end goal, but as with all things we each have a different path somewhere along the way due to differences of opinions.

Have a nice Easter.

DHS & Remove Bush, Of all

DHS & Remove Bush,
Of all the implausible things that occurred on 9/11, I would start with:
Massive steel building WTC-7 implodes for no known reason. Landlord inexplicably states that he & the fire dept agreed to “pull-it.” Certainly looks like controlled demolition to me.

Proof a plane hit the

RemoveBush says

RemoveBush says

"Cheney:

What is so special about him in the eyes of the day? Other than the fact that he was in charge of the military that day and did nothting?"

There are a number of problems with this dismissal of a focus on Cheney, even aside from the fact of his obvious role in running the government, his Energy Task Force, his work with the CIA to create a "Team B" approach to intelligence, etc.

Here's one major problem: "He was in charge of the military that day."
Why? What Constitutional role does a VP have in the Military chain of command? None, except in the inability of the POTUS to perform such duties, clearly not the case on 9/11, as Bush was traveling with the Secret Service and the White House Situation Room Commander and Air Force One is fully capable of providing major sophisticated communications capabilities.

So the fact that we have so easily and cavalierly allowed the Commander-in-Chief to delegate these functions to his VP is troubling.

Also, I am assume that interested readers are familiar with the argument put forth by Ruppert and Kane in "Crossing The Rubicon"..., short versions of which are available at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
or in the 9/11 People's Commission videos and transcripts.

and, for additional thoughts, see
the last three blogs (in reverse order) at http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&...

and/or the full 9/11 threads (one archived, one current)in the Online Cafe at commongroundcommonsense.org at http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showforum=259

As G4A would say:
Yippee Ki-Yay Ki-Yo...

Mssr. Jouet (Magmak1)

Have a great weekend, and keep looking...

http://www.popularmechanics.c

http://www.popularmechanics.c

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y

REPORTING: Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS.

Benjamin Chertoff is Michael Chertoff's cousin. ( h i t - p i e c e )

http://www.rumormillnews.com/